Jubes vs “High end audiophile speakers”

[Edgar]

19 hours ago, Chris A said:

The best systems that I've heard were built into custom venues in fairly large theater or stadium-type seating arrangements (i.e., much larger than a home installation), and having a very large horn radiating areas and controlled reflections/reverberation times vs. frequency.  They never seem to be at audio shows.

 

OK, so I have a question about all of this. I'll have to ramble a bit before I actually get to the question, so please bear with me.

 

I've told this story here before, so I'll keep it brief this time. Many years ago I was working the NAB show for Electro Voice. The din on the show floor was unbelievable, as every manufacturer of tiny nearfield monitors tried to play louder than every other manufacturer of tiny nearfield monitors. And the bass from every one of them sounded like it was being played through a down comforter. One of my EV co-workers decided to show the rest of the world just what a fully horn-loaded loudspeaker could do. He fired-up a set of Xi-1153A (if I remember correctly) and they cut through the noise like a fog horn. The sound was absolutely effortless.

 

I have heard that effortless quality from horn-loaded loudspeakers, but never from direct radiators. But nowadays direct radiators sacrifice efficiency for small size and deep bass. In the olden days it wasn't uncommon for direct radiator drivers to have sensitivities in the 95+ dB range. In fact you can still find some -- I gave examples in the "Small folded horn vs direct ... 30-800Hz" thread. And if you were to put two or four of them together, you could get to 100+ dB sensitivity which gives horns a good run for their money.

 

So here is the question: If one were to build an appropriate (meaning "really big") enclosure around a bunch of those high-sensitivity woofers, such that the system sensitivity was in the 100 dB range, would their sound output have that same effortless quality as horn-loaded loudspeakers? Or would they just sound like loud direct radiators?

 

I know that PWK mentioned that multiple direct radiators was a viable approach to increasing sensitivity and decreasing distortion, but I'm talking about subjective sound quality -- there may or may not be a correlation between the two.

[Chris A]

First, a picture that I found of the loudspeaker that you mentioned (since I wasn't familiar with them):

 

34 minutes ago, Edgar said:

So here is the question: If one were to build an appropriate (meaning "really big") enclosure around a bunch of those high-sensitivitywoofers, such that the system sensitivity was in the 100 dB range, would their sound output have that same effortless quality as horn-loaded loudspeakers? Or would they just sound like loud direct radiators?

Roy treated a few people to a really interesting demonstration in Hope about 10 years ago, and the story still gets significant airplay from a few of the participants (mainly Jub owners and enthusiasts).  He started with a K-402/K-69-A and KPT-KHJ-LF (Jubilee bass bin) in one corner of the listening room (next to the chamber).  In the other corner, he placed (IIRC) a single 15" woofer ported box with an identical K-402/K-69-A.  He played some heavy bass "urban contemporary" music CD and switched between them once, allowing us to listen for at least one track (and probably two tracks, if I can remember) at something a bit louder than 83 dB (probably about 90-95 dB in the peaks of kick drum hits).  Okay, check.

 

I heard the difference between one 15" woofer in a ported cabinet and two 12" drivers in a well-designed/implemented horn cabinet--and here's the kicker: the horn-loaded cabinet has good directivity down to about 100 Hz, while the 15" woofer loses directivity below ~800 Hz.  The 15" port box sounded very much like a jukebox that had been turned up a little too high while playing "Born to Be Wild" (as I remember from my early teens).  The sound "splattered" like splintering wood on the big kick drum hits.

 

Next, he repeated the experiment, replacing the single 15" ported box with a dual 15" ported box (KPT-902-LF).  The result (IIRC) was that the jukebox sound at about half or less the "irritation level", The splintering sound was still there, perhaps a bit more emphasized.  My preference for the Jub bass bin was still overwhelmingly in its favor.

 

Next, a four-15" woofer ported box (KPT-415-LF). Now the game was afoot.  Many in the room liked the impact (chest thumping) of the 415, and you could see it in their faces and animated manner.  I listened to it, then asked myself, "does this sound like the real thing?".  Some people definitely answered yes to that rhetorical question.  I didn't.  It sounded like the sound system that backs up rock bands, but not like a kick drum by itself, unamplified.  (Okay, you know where this is going.)  The Jub bass bin didn't have the impact or chest thump like the KPT-415-LF, but to my ears, it sounded real.  The "splintering sound" was even more pronounced with the 415 than the other ported boxes (IIRC). 

 

What I didn't talk about was the feeling of "fullness" that you get when a horn/driver loses its directivity--like the difference between the K-510 and K-402, albeit at higher frequencies, and starts to paint the nearby wall surfaces with nearfield acoustic energy.  All the ported direct radiators had that "full" feeling, and their timbre shifted because of that loss of directivity control.  Only the Jub bass bin retained its apparent acoustic image size (wherever the volume control was set) and a sense of realism--at least until the volume was too high to be a real, unamplified performance.

 

Perhaps you can get some of your answers from the description above.  There were more differences, to be sure, but after 10 years that's what sticks in my mind.

 

Chris

[mikebse2a3]

Roy gave a group of us a demo of 3 direct radiator LF Systems and a Jubilee and all had the K402 HF.

 

The (3) direct radiator LF systems were as follows:

 

(1) 15”

(2) 15”

(4) 15”

 

As the number of 15” drivers (radiating surface area increased) per system the sound quality was obviously improved each time in clarity/distortion with the (4 x 15” driver) system performing very close to the Jubilee LF system. 

 

My opinion was the Jubilee System was still the best and it took the 4x15” direct radiator system to get close to its performance but by then the direct radiator system’s bulk size was as much if not more than the Jubilee.

 

This was a great demo about how low frequencies reproduction in rooms benefit from large radiating surface areas and thus small amplitude requirements for a given SPL required.

 

miketn

[Chris A]

Directivity differences (which comprise at least 50% of the differences in listening for my ears):  if someone doesn't hear those differences in directivity, then I'd say that they were in what I'd call the "jukebox" camp.  If you did hear it and disliked the direct radiator ported boxes, then I'd say your were more in the "consistent image size/timbre/clarity" camp. 

 

The timbre shifts and opaqueness (10+ dB higher modulation distortion products) of the direct radiator boxes all had issues (by my recollection), with the improved directivity and reduced group delay/modulation distortion/compression distortion of the 4-woofer box improving the imaging differences...but not entirely.  This apparently was the major source of my listening preference for the Jubilee bass bin performance, looking back on that experiment.  I think Roy was actually testing the listeners with this little experiment since he is acutely aware of those differences.  I remember him watching us intently as this experiment unfolded, paying close attention to body language and the exact words that were being presented back to him.

 

I''m not sure that any others realized that the 100-800 Hz directivity thing was playing out in spades in front of us, but it was and timbre shifts were included in the listening differences.  It took me a while to realize conceptually what my ears immediately told me, but my mind couldn't "put the finger on". 

 

Chris

[Chris A]

54 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

My opinion was the Jubilee System was still the best and it took the 4x15” direct radiator system to get close to its performance but by then the direct radiator system’s bulk size was as much if not more than the Jubilee.

The KPT-415-LF is even taller than the Jubilee bass bin and about as wide.  I just remember it being "huge" in appearance relatively speaking, with the K-402s visually higher off the floor.  You'd have to be about double the usual listener distance (about 10 feet--> 20 feet) from the loudspeakers to not have loudspeaker height issues while listening, IMO.

 

Chris

[Edgar]

I haven't figured out, yet, whether these responses (thank you) actually answer my question, probably because "effortless" is such a subjective thing. I was concerned that perhaps the KPT-415-LF didn't qualify as a high-sensitivity system, but it's rated at 109 dB (2 Ohm impedance). So the demonstration that you all described really did fit my criteria. I guess I'll just have to experience it for myself.

 

The nice thing about a multi-driver system, even if huge, is that it can be shaped pretty much any way you want. A horn, on the other hand, can only be bent and folded just so many ways, and as a result they are often very difficult to fit into a listening room.

[mikebse2a3]

Edgar

 

Here is what we listened to that day with Roy to give you a since of scale.

 

 

 

 

[jwc]

21 hours ago, Chris A said:

At some level of performance, it is my experience that loudspeakers+rooms will begin to all sound alike when the performance gets to a threshold level (just like very good amplifiers, etc.)  Once you begin to achieve really good performance, you soon start to be limited by the recordings themselves--in my experience.  I've run into this limitation in spades--which is probably why I've started to demaster my own recordings...(YMMV).

I disagree with this completely.  I don't need a scientific quote to change my mind.

 

I thought the quad 15's sounded better.

 

NO speaker I've ever owned imaged as well as the https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/speakers/XRT1K.  The instruments sounded really....just like the instruments.  It was a different type of listening experience than horns.  The midrange by comparison did not stand out and the bass was a tad boomy.

 

I've never heard a Klipsch speaker that imaged better than a la scala.  Jube beats it on detail and low end for sure.

 

Most detailed/clarity system I've heard is Mark1101 MCM system.

 

I've heard Maggies 3 times.  Came close to pulling the trigger more than once.  That is yet another whole different sound...that I found very enjoyable.

 

jc

 

 

 

[mikebse2a3]

I will add this comment from Roy to me when I talked with him about the comparison of the KPT-415 versus Jub LF during the demonstration seen in the picture I posted. Most of those I talked with at the time preferred the Jub LF but at least 1 or 2 preferred the KPT-415.

 

Roy ...” Some people like/prefer the distortion of a direct radiator system.”

 

miketn

[mikebse2a3]

I want to add that sound preference is very subjective and ultimately people need to find what makes them happy above all regardless of specs or others opinions.

 

miketn

[jwc]

4 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

I want to add that sound preference is very subjective and ultimately people need to find what makes them happy above all regardless of specs or others opinions.

 

miketn

well said.

[babadono]

46 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

I want to add that sound preference is very subjective and ultimately people need to find what makes them happy above all regardless of specs or others opinions.

 

miketn

 

41 minutes ago, jwc said:

well said.

Of course a horse is a horse of course

[Bill W.]

2 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Roy gave a group of us a demo of 3 direct radiator LF Systems and a Jubilee and all had the K402 HF.

 

The (3) direct radiator LF systems were as follows:

 

(1) 15”

(2) 15”

(4) 15”

 

As the number of 15” drivers (radiating surface area increased) per system the sound quality was obviously improved each time in clarity/distortion with the (4 x 15” driver) system performing very close to the Jubilee LF system. 

 

My opinion was the Jubilee System was still the best and it took the 4x15” direct radiator system to get close to its performance but by then the direct radiator system’s bulk size was as much if not more than the Jubilee.

 

This was a great demo about how low frequencies reproduction in rooms benefit from large radiating surface areas and thus small amplitude requirements for a given SPL required.

 

miketn

That is exactly as I perceived it as well. I found that to be one of the most instructive demonstrations I have experienced.

[Khornukopia]

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Here is what we listened to that day with Roy...

 

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

the comparison of the KPT-415 versus Jub LF during the demonstration seen in the picture I posted. Most of those I talked with at the time preferred the Jub LF but at least 1 or 2 preferred the KPT-415.

 

Interesting to read your comments and the posts from the other listeners, too. Curious to know if you guys swapped seating positions so you could hear each speaker from different room locations? That could possibly influence the perceived sound.

[Chris A]

I was at the rear of the room, and able to move around a little.  That room is pretty good acoustically in terms of consistency of the imaging, timbre, clarity, etc.  I didn't notice any prominent or exaggerated room mode effects, and the ones that were there were pretty well moderated.  In other words, I didn't perceive the room as a big factor.  Note that the room itself has a tilt on the ceiling - higher on the left than the right, and the dimensions are somewhat larger than the average home listening room with essentially no furnishings/furniture to provide local reflections.

 

Also note: we were listening in mono, so stereo imaging wasn't a factor.  Another point: K-402s (and Jubilee bass bins) pretty much make the entire room into a sweet spot--much more so than Khorns and other Heritage loudspeakers, IME. 

 

Chris

[mark1101]

Of course I was at those get togethers in Roy's lab and sort of became the Jub villain among us.  As just about everyone except me bought Jubs...........I went and bought MWM cabinets.  It hasn't been mentioned yet here that Roy also did the same test with Jub vs. MWM and I always felt the MWM sounded much better.  This was in 2007 I believe.  I hunted all over to find some MWMs and started with 2-way, then 3-way and eventually 4-way.

 

I only got jubs two years ago and have tossed thousands at them in an attempt to get them to sound as good as the MCM setup.  The plan was to have the Jubs replace the MCM, and me get back some real estate in my room and cash out of the big MCM and multi-amp setup.  The plan failed.  The Jubs have their good points but just come up short compared to my MCM.   I still love and enjoy them for the great sounding speakers they are, but they will simply never replace my MCM.  I could see myself selling the Jubs but not the MCM.

 

Not too many folks making posts like this!!!  The truth!!!

[Edgar]

2 minutes ago, mark1101 said:

... Roy also did the same test with Jub vs. MWM and I always felt the MWM sounded much better.

 

Does the MWM go as deep as the Jubilee? I somehow got the impression that the MWM was a 50 Hz horn.

[mark1101]

The Jub plays noticeably lower, yes.  The MWM plays noticeably smoother and in my opinion has more energy in the right places to produce more true and pleasing bass.  Much bigger bass.  I use subs with both systems which negates the "play lower" issue completely.

 

Edit:  By the way, by measurements I always see the MWMs getting down in the low 40s  / high 30s.  I have them in corners and they definitely go much lower than 50.  I use K33 woofers in them.

[Dave A]

24 minutes ago, mark1101 said:

Of course I was at those get togethers in Roy's lab and sort of became the Jub villain among us.  As just about everyone except me bought Jubs...........I went and bought MWM cabinets.  It hasn't been mentioned yet here that Roy also did the same test with Jub vs. MWM and I always felt the MWM sounded much better.  This was in 2007 I believe.  I hunted all over to find some MWMs and started with 2-way, then 3-way and eventually 4-way.

 

I only got jubs two years ago and have tossed thousands at them in an attempt to get them to sound as good as the MCM setup.  The plan was to have the Jubs replace the MCM, and me get back some real estate in my room and cash out of the big MCM and multi-amp setup.  The plan failed.  The Jubs have their good points but just come up short compared to my MCM.   I still love and enjoy them for the great sounding speakers they are, but they will simply never replace my MCM.  I could see myself selling the Jubs but not the MCM.

 

Not too many folks making posts like this!!!  The truth!!!

I am with you on the quality of the bass from the MWM's. I have heard deeper by far but nothing else quite does it like those MWM's and that is the reason for building the Super MWM's. I watched my set of three ways depart last week to greener pastures but they would have never left if something better was not on hand to replace them with.

[Chris A]

32 minutes ago, Edgar said:

I somehow got the impression that the MWM was a 50 Hz horn.

You're right.

 

Unfortunately, I'm now compelled to say that I disagree with some assessments over which loudspeaker configuration "sounds better"--realizing of course that my listening criteria are perhaps much different than theirs. 

 

Maybe there are also some differences in set-up and dialing-in that others may not have considered while reading this thread.  These are areas that I find are very easy to overlook.   I've personally found a couple of areas of adjustment to achieve what I judge to be significant improvement in Jubilee sound quality, even within the past 3-4 months.  Maybe this has something to do with the willingness to learn more coupled with a little knowledge to keep working with them to extract more performance, and spending time discovering those yet-untapped resources. 

 

I do hope that the divisiveness that has been spawned in this thread lately is soon quelled between those that have known each other for a long while--in some cases, for a decade or longer.  It's particularly distasteful, I find.  These sort of discussions tend to bring out the worst narcissistic qualities in many--those that otherwise have been strong contributors to the forum.

 

Chris